"This is a typical action for people that feel they have no voice. " - I
agree in principal, but with one serious reservation: *These people are
carrying guns*, and have openly stated that they will resort to
violence, if necessary, to defend their position. Violence (or the
threat of violence) has no place in the political discourse of a
civilized, democratic society, and should not be tolerated as a means to
accomplish political objectives.
On 1/5/2016 4:04 PM, Ed Fredrickson wrote:
It does sound somewhat like the 1960's and 70's: "students take over
university dean's office" or "anti war protestors occupy army
recruiter's office". Even the recent Occupy Movement shares some
similarities. This is a typical action for people that feel they have
no voice. Maybe we should suspend the name calling and angry spin this
time. Perhaps we should be listening, understanding, and working to
seek viable solutions. Progressives are beginning to sound a lot like
radical conservatives. Let's change the dialog and show the power of
reasoning guided by simple compassion.
Just a thought.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John A. <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This morning my local paper ran a strong editorial about current
events in Oregon, condemning the armed criminals who have taken over
a wildlife refuge with threats of deadly force. These people may
pretend to be family-friendly, but the fact is they've threatened the
lives of federal employees and they're preventing the lawful use of
public lands.
While I can appreciate there may be local considerations, allowing
an armed takeover of a protected area sets a terrible precedent.
When thugs are given carte blanche to threaten other citizens away
from public property, it sends the message that weapons and extremist
rhetoric can somehow justify gross violations of the law. It's hard
to imagine these takeovers won't become more common as a result, with
an increased threat to the lives of natural resource professionals as
well as the lands they work on.
This is what conservationists have to deal with in developing
countries, where corruption is rampant at every level and legal
protections are wafer-thin; but what does it say when we allow it to
happen in the United States? Don't we have some responsibility to
speak out against it?
-
J. A.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 5, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John A. <[email protected]> wrote:
This morning my local paper ran a strong editorial about current
events in Oregon, condemning the armed criminals who have taken over
a wildlife refuge with threats of deadly force. These people may
pretend to be family-friendly, but the fact is they've threatened the
lives of federal employees and they're preventing the lawful use of
public lands.
While I can appreciate there may be local considerations, allowing
an armed takeover of a protected area sets a terrible precedent.
When thugs are given carte blanche to threaten other citizens away
from public property, it sends the message that weapons and extremist
rhetoric can somehow justify gross violations of the law. It's hard
to imagine these takeovers won't become more common as a result, with
an increased threat to the lives of natural resource professionals as
well as the lands they work on.
This is what conservationists have to deal with in developing
countries, where corruption is rampant at every level and legal
protections are wafer-thin; but what does it say when we allow it to
happen in the United States? Don't we have some responsibility to
speak out against it?
-
J. A.
--
Matt Urschel
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Department of Earth and Environmental Science
518-527-1414
SC 1C38
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12180
